Good riddance, tea party
Has the tea party run its course? Look at its success or lack thereof in the last election.
It didn't make Barack Obama a “one-term president,” as Michele Bachmann had repeated during the last few years. And face it, this wasn't a popular movement rising from the grass roots. To be sure, many think it was. But big-money donors like the Koch brothers funding Americans for Prosperity aren't going to throw money at groups that — let's face it — failed.
Even Dick Armey left FreedomWorks, claiming tea-party candidates were — I'll be gracious — less than competent! So, the people who channeled money to tea-party groups have started to turn away from them.
Now, with the fiscal-cliff legislative disaster for Republicans in the U.S. House, they have shown the tea party isn't to be feared by establishment Republicans. Look at the easy re-election of John Boehner as speaker of the House!
Boehner will not forget those who have caused him nothing but grief these last few months and years in the House. And I'm not talking about Democrats. Boehner will turn his attention to House tea partyers and shy away from raising the money they need to run re-election campaigns.
Tip O'Neill once said that “money is the mother's milk of politics,” and the tea party will find itself pulled away from the political teat of political fundraising.
The tea party is over — thank you very much!
Show commenting policy
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.
- Positive & healthy ...
- Thanks for the coverage
- ... Or free-riding fad?
- Goodell’s ‘pick-six’
- Russia, not Rice
- Ferguson & contradictions
- More answers, please
- Sticker shock
- Blame judges
- Thomas’ ‘humanity’
- Hiring in Westmoreland II